Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by stating that no hidden assumptions are applied and the output is purely arithmetic with a concrete balancing action. This provides additional transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that packs essential information: the purpose, what it outputs, and a key transparency claim. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently communicates its value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description states the tool 'calculate' metrics and provides some output behavior ('shows the arithmetic and a concrete balancing action'). However, it does not explain the return format or structure, which is important given there is no output schema. The input complexity (6 parameters) and lack of output schema suggest the description should cover more about result format to be complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only the 'lang' parameter has a description). The tool description does not provide any additional details about the parameters or their semantics. It merely lists the metrics calculated but doesn't clarify each input. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance on parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate weekly review demand, utilization, capacity gap, supported change throughput, and changes lacking evidence.' It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('verification capacity'). The sibling tools are all different (e.g., check_release_readiness, plan_change_verification), so this tool is well-distinguished.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context: 'No cost model, benchmark, or hidden industry assumption is applied; the output shows the arithmetic and a concrete balancing action.' This helps the agent understand what the tool does and does not do, implying when to use it (for raw arithmetic capacity calculation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's slightly less than perfect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.